Had the last election been held in Canada, Bernie Sanders vs Donald Trump, Bernie would have won with about 90% of the vote.

To Canadians Bernie appears as a mildly leftist candidate. But the whole American political spectrum is shifted well to the right of us, so we have to wonder if Bernie Sanders is electable in such a political climate.

By the standards of pretty much every other country on the planet, the US' right/left political axis is seriously miscalibrated.

I think with Bernie, Trump and others, their main appeal is about where they lie on a different axis, the elite/populist one. Clinton didn't lose because she was left-wing, she lost because she was portrayed as elite relative to "populist" Trump. (These designations are pure PR, they bear very little relation to how these politicians thought or acted.) Sanders was a match for, or possibly stronger than Trump on the "populist" axis, and despite him being portrayed as an economic leftist relative to Trump, most of the polling suggested he would have won in 2016, largely due to better voter turnout from the Democrat base. Looking at the rest of the Democrat primary field for 2020, they all look a lot more "elite" than Sanders, so I suspect the same calculation would hold - possibly Sanders would have more of an edge this time, even though Trump is a sitting president, since Trump has lost a lot of the moderate Republican base.

Had the last election been held in Canada, Bernie Sanders vs Donald Trump, Bernie would have won with about 90% of the vote.

To Canadians Bernie appears as a mildly leftist candidate. But the whole American political spectrum is shifted well to the right of us, so we have to wonder if Bernie Sanders is electable in such a political climate.

By the standards of pretty much every other country on the planet, the US' right/left political axis is seriously miscalibrated.

I think with Bernie, Trump and others, their main appeal is about where they lie on a different axis, the elite/populist one. Clinton didn't lose because she was left-wing, she lost because she was portrayed as elite relative to "populist" Trump. (These designations are pure PR, they bear very little relation to how these politicians thought or acted.) Sanders was a match for, or possibly stronger than Trump on the "populist" axis, and despite him being portrayed as an economic leftist relative to Trump, most of the polling suggested he would have won in 2016, largely due to better voter turnout from the Democrat base. Looking at the rest of the Democrat primary field for 2020, they all look a lot more "elite" than Sanders, so I suspect the same calculation would hold - possibly Sanders would have more of an edge this time, even though Trump is a sitting president, since Trump has lost a lot of the moderate Republican base.

I didn't respond adequately to your comment to my post on Dems becoming too extremist, so here's an abbreviated response. Sanders won't have an edge imo and there is a lot about the new progressive left turn that has Democrats' heads spinning. Did you see the referendum on anti-semitism brought about by the Rep in Minnesota's comments? Have you looked at criticism of the Green New Deal, including financial compensation for those "unwilling to work," and of course, 70% tax rates for the wealthy? Maybe you think that's middle of the road policy, but a lot of people, including Democrats, do not agree.

Had the last election been held in Canada, Bernie Sanders vs Donald Trump, Bernie would have won with about 90% of the vote.

To Canadians Bernie appears as a mildly leftist candidate. But the whole American political spectrum is shifted well to the right of us, so we have to wonder if Bernie Sanders is electable in such a political climate.

By the standards of pretty much every other country on the planet, the US' right/left political axis is seriously miscalibrated.

I think with Bernie, Trump and others, their main appeal is about where they lie on a different axis, the elite/populist one. Clinton didn't lose because she was left-wing, she lost because she was portrayed as elite relative to "populist" Trump. (These designations are pure PR, they bear very little relation to how these politicians thought or acted.) Sanders was a match for, or possibly stronger than Trump on the "populist" axis, and despite him being portrayed as an economic leftist relative to Trump, most of the polling suggested he would have won in 2016, largely due to better voter turnout from the Democrat base. Looking at the rest of the Democrat primary field for 2020, they all look a lot more "elite" than Sanders, so I suspect the same calculation would hold - possibly Sanders would have more of an edge this time, even though Trump is a sitting president, since Trump has lost a lot of the moderate Republican base.

I didn't respond adequately to your comment to my post on Dems becoming too extremist, so here's an abbreviated response. Sanders won't have an edge imo and there is a lot about the new progressive left turn that has Democrats' heads spinning. Did you see the referendum on anti-semitism brought about by the Rep in Minnesota's comments? Have you looked at criticism of the Green New Deal, including financial compensation for those "unwilling to work," and of course, 70% tax rates for the wealthy? Maybe you think that's middle of the road policy, but a lot of people, including Democrats, do not agree.

Of course wealthier democrats hate talk of 70% tax rates. But you have to think of this in terms of counties. In the general election, the counties where those people live are never going to go republican. All that really matters is the battleground counties, and the message of the poor being exploited by the elites certainly does play well there. It played well for Trump.

Now there is the issue of getting through the democrat primary. However after the debacle last time where the unpopular establishment candidate was shoved through by the party leadership, resulting in very weak turnout in the general election, pretty much ensures that this time they will prioritize popular appeal. And Sanders does have that. Moreover when you look at the other potential democrat candidates, pretty much all of them are close to Sanders on economic issues. The only potential one that is more conservative economically, who also would be a very strong candidate against Trump, is Biden.

The fact that most of the candidates are mouthing progressive positions seems like a political “dog whistle” to me. They are telling the big-money-donors they can rally the popularity of progressivism, but will toe the established Democratic line once in office.

I think there are two reasons politicians don’t follow through on campaign promises. First, the promises are just rhetoric. Second, no individual politician, even the president, is really powerful enough to actually get things done on their own. Especially not in the current, polarized climate.

Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, I’m told, were particularly good at back room deals and political alliance making, and that’s how they got progressive results. What makes Bernie stand out is that, first, he really seems to believe in what he says, and second that he is quite clear about the fact he can’t do it on his own. Without a massive ground swell of support none of this can happen.

So the strategy is whether his campaign and supporters can show the people who would actually benefit that their best interest really does lie in affordable education, free child care, a living minimum wage, universal healthcare, confronting climate change, and forcing corporations and the 1% to pay their fair share of taxes.

We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

I didn't respond adequately to your comment to my post on Dems becoming too extremist, so here's an abbreviated response. Sanders won't have an edge imo and there is a lot about the new progressive left turn that has Democrats' heads spinning. Did you see the referendum on anti-semitism brought about by the Rep in Minnesota's comments? Have you looked at criticism of the Green New Deal, including financial compensation for those "unwilling to work," and of course, 70% tax rates for the wealthy? Maybe you think that's middle of the road policy, but a lot of people, including Democrats, do not agree.

Did I say something about the Democrats and extremism? Anyhoo as things stand, I think Bernie has a least a fighting chance to unseat Trump, in spite of the somewhat rightist climate in the States.
I certainly agree that the last election was mainly polarized on elitism vs populism. Bernie can play that game well. But if the Dems field a candidate that tries to use the Green New Deal as a platform, Trump will trounce em with ease. Not a single Republican of any stripe will be convinced by the Green New Deal approach and I suspect less than half of the Dems find it plausible. Hopefully the Dems will be better attuned to the public mood than last time.

Have you looked at criticism of the Green New Deal, including financial compensation for those "unwilling to work," and of course, 70% tax rates for the wealthy?

The Green New Deal is basically a talking point. Its a catchall slogan for, "WE'RE ABOUT TO DRIVE OFF AN ENVIRONMENTAL CLIFF AND WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The compensation for bums is a FOX pundit talking point based on a draft that "mistakenly" got published on AOC's website. We will see how urgent the environment is for voters in the coming months.

People are against the talking point of 70% tax rates, but when its explained that it only applies to marginal income over $10 million dollars, there is overwhelming support. Most of us are on the have-not spectrum. We generally agree - f' those billionaires. But we should not just tax income, we should be taxing wealth as well, as Bill Gates recently suggested.

We will see.

I was vaguely listening to NPR and someone made a good point, I thought: the question here is whether the Middle Class agrees that this country needs to take a new direction. Do we agree that we should reorganize 1/6 of the economy to provide universal healthcare? Do we agree that we ought to start redirecting resources from things like tax cuts and the military and put them toward infrastructure and education?

Trump has the advantage of playing fear. Bernie would have to encourage people to take a chance and do what makes sense.

Warren, Buttigieg, Yang, might make the same arguments. I don't trust the others. They would be the usual Democrats.

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

Paul Krugman wrote an interesting oped about the valid economic theory behind a 70% tax rate on the extremely wealthy back in January. It’s worth a read. The Economics of Soaking the Rich

His position can be summarized in these quotes, but the article goes into more depth about why it makes sense.

Krugman wrote:The controversy of the moment involves AOC’s advocacy of a tax rate of 70-80 percent on very high incomes, which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? Only ignorant people like … um, Peter Diamond, Nobel laureate in economics and arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance. (Although Republicans blocked him from an appointment to the Federal Reserve Board with claims that he was unqualified. Really.) And it’s a policy nobody has ever implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history.

Republicans almost universally advocate low taxes on the wealthy, based on the claim that tax cuts at the top will have huge beneficial effects on the economy. This claim rests on research by … well, nobody. There isn’t any body of serious work supporting G.O.P. tax ideas, because the evidence is overwhelmingly against those ideas.

We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

Republicans almost universally advocate low taxes on the wealthy, based on the claim that tax cuts at the top will have huge beneficial effects on the economy. This claim rests on research by … well, nobody. There isn’t any body of serious work supporting G.O.P. tax ideas, because the evidence is overwhelmingly against those ideas.

Voodoo economics...

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

On a related note, Sen. Warren on the rationale for taxing the wealthy. From an NPR interview:

"Jeff Bezos, you had a great idea, you got out there, you worked hard. ... You have this great fortune. But remember, you built this fortune here in America," she said. "You used workers that all of us helped pay to educate. You got your goods to market on roads and bridges that all of us helped pay to build. You were protected by firefighters and police officers that all of us helped to pay for, and we're glad to do that. But what we're saying is, when you make it really, really, really big, put a little back in the kitty so that the next kid gets a chance, and the kid after that, and the kid after that."

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

10% $0 to $9,525 10% of taxable income
12% $9,526 to $38,700 $952.50 plus 12% of the amount over $9,525
22% $38,701 to $82,500 $4,453.50 plus 22% of the amount over $38,700
24% $82,501 to $157,500 $14,089.50 plus 24% of the amount over $82,500
32% $157,501 to $200,000 $32,089.50 plus 32% of the amount over $157,500
35% $200,001 to $500,000 $45,689.50 plus 35% of the amount over $200,000
37% $500,001 or more $150,689.50 plus 37% of the amount over $500,000

There's also an issue that many high net worth individuals don't pay income tax, but rather capital gains tax.

On long term capital gains:

0% $0 to $38,600
15% $38,601 to $425,800
20% $425,801 or more

Short term capital gains is taxed as income.

Dunno what other countries are like. I suspect higher in countries with strong social services.

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

Ty interesting table. The US top rate does seem to be a little lower than many other industrialized nations.

PS: Although when you add the top federal rate to the top state rate, maybe not so.

Many states don't have income tax. The high income tax is limited to a few states. Wealthy try to set up residence in low tax states. For instance, NY is fairly high. Lot of people try to set up residence in FL. They're getting caught, though, because they spend all their time in NY as demonstrated by social media and phone records. Its amusing to watch the cat and mouse games.

Also, because of various deductions and credits, income tax is hardly ever just a straight up tax on nominal gross income.

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

After a whole lotta math mostly involving how dividends are taxed, the answer is True. The Walton family makes $25,149 per minute in dividends, more than the worker average of $24,960. And they "collectively profit from nearly $7.8 billion per year in federal subsidies and tax breaks." http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/walmart-gove ... tudy#51652

Inequality is clearly the biggest issue. Its what was behind Trump getting elected, and its going to become more pressing as the economy continues to slow - which is happening now.

Seems to me, we can push aside all the "moderates" who just want to take the sting out of the status quo. Entrenched interests are not going to give up without a fight - they never have, and they never will.

At this point, we are looking to select the general who is going to lead us into this fight.

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

If we want the social benefits like universal healthcare, free education, etc. there must be a limit to those eligible.

There also ought to be a vigorous effort to make the Central American countries from which migrants are now coming become stable and safe. I can hear the anti-colonialists freaking out already - "Its America's fault they're the way they are!" Well, then its America's responsibility to fix it, isn't it? We can do this on the up and up. The US has done this well in the past, and could do it again (We've also been terrible at it.) We need to get our house in order, though.

Bernie can lead on those agendas.

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.
-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta